Futility Closet - 317-Lateral Thinking Puzzles

Episode Date: October 26, 2020

Here are six new lateral thinking puzzles -- play along with us as we try to untangle some perplexing situations using yes-or-no questions. Intro: Stonewall Jackson recorded 14 precepts for good conversation. Ben Franklin offered four "rules for making oneself a disagreeable companion." Sources for this episode's puzzles: Puzzle #1 is from listener Allen Houser. Puzzle #2 is from listener Michael Cavanagh. Puzzle #3 is from listener Jessica Aves. Puzzle #4 is from listener Laura Merz. Puzzle #5 is from listener ospalh. Puzzle #6 is from Agnes Rogers' 1953 book How Come? A Book of Riddles, sent in by listener Jon Jerome. You can listen using the player above, download this episode directly, or subscribe on Google Podcasts, on Apple Podcasts, or via the RSS feed at https://futilitycloset.libsyn.com/rss. Please consider becoming a patron of Futility Closet -- you can choose the amount you want to pledge, and we've set up some rewards to help thank you for your support. You can also make a one-time donation on the Support Us page of the Futility Closet website. Many thanks to Doug Ross for the music in this episode. If you have any questions or comments you can reach us at [e-mail]. Thanks for listening!

Welcome to the Futility Closet podcast, forgotten stories from the pages of history. Visit us online to sample more than 11,000 quirky curiosities from Stonewall Jackson's rules for conversation to Ben Franklin's rules for being disagreeable. This is episode 317. I'm Greg Ross. And I'm Sharon Ross. This is another special episode of Lateral Thinking Puzzles. These are puzzles where one of us describes a strange sounding situation and the other has to try to figure out what's going on by asking yes or no questions. Thanks so much to everyone who's been sending in puzzles for us to try. We can always use more, so please keep sending them to podcast at futilitycloset.com.

And we'll be back next week with another dose of quirky history and another lateral thinking puzzle. This is from listener Alan Hauser. In the 1999 computer game Roller Coaster Tycoon, players build and manage the day-to-day business of virtual amusement parks. Players progress through the game by managing a variety of scenarios that are completed by achieving one or more specific goals, like staying under budget or increasing the number of visitors. While playing one of the game's scenarios, a player decides to methodically pluck individual virtual amusement park visitors from the property and drown them in the park's lake. Oh, no.

Why? Oh, my. So did this actually accomplish the goal in the game? Yes. But accidentally. Like, obviously, the game developers didn't intend that you were supposed to drown them. I guess I can't say for sure, but I would be horrified. But somehow the software interpreted that as you were actually accomplishing something.

Yes. So you were saying you were plucking individual park goers and drowning them. Yes. So what goal would that be seeming to accomplish? Reducing crowds? Reducing lines? Oh, I didn't think about that. No, that's not it. Does it create amusement and spectacle for the other park goers? Oh, look, a drowning. I'm trying to think where to even go with this. So somebody figured this out. Somebody thought,

wow, I could accomplish this goal by drowning some of the people. Yeah, it's a creative solution. If you had killed the people in some way other than drowning them, would this have still achieved the goal? Yes. Okay, so did you need to have killed the park goers? If you could have induced them to leave on their own, would this still have achieved the goal?

I don't know the answer to that question possibly possibly so you just wanted are the people that you're picking to get rid of do they share some characteristic yes so you're trying to reduce the numbers of certain a certain class of people or type of person? Yes. Okay. Would it be a typical demographic, like gender, age, anything like that? No. Is it troublemakers or people who are causing problems in some ways? No.

Would you say that these people would be a class of people or type of person that I would expect to find at an amusement park? Yes. Are you killing, like, the park inspectors? Like, the people who are supposed to go around, the safety inspectors? No, but you're sort of on the right track. See, that would help. Like, if they were going to find that the rides were unsafe, then you just drown them before they can shut the park down. Or the restaurant with like the food safety inspectors who check the restaurants. Nothing like that.

No. Not quite for safety. Not inspectors. Not inspectors. You're on the right track. Somebody that you don't want to say something negative in some kind of way. to say something negative in some kind of way. Somebody that you're trying to keep from saying something negative or doing something that would be detrimental to the park.

There are certain metrics that you acquire as you're playing the game. Yeah. And this measure is intended to improve one of those. One of the metrics. People who would give bad ratings or reviews. That's it. Is it seriously? Like the people who are unhappy, the disgruntled customers. Oh my gosh. Alan writes, the scenario in question calls for the player to achieve a target customer satisfaction goal. Other success factors like fatalities do not adversely affect the player's score in this

scenario. Oh, fatalities don't matter at an amusement park. This narrow goal can be reached by identifying individual unsatisfied customers and eliminating them from the game, thus increasing the overall satisfaction score. This puzzle comes from Michael Cavanaugh. A working bar maintains

several operating refrigerators for beverages, but they are not used to keep the drinks cold. What is going on? You're smiling as you ask that question. A working bar maintains several refrigerators? Uh-huh. For, you say, four beverages? Yes. But not to keep them cold. By bar, do you mean like a drinking establishment?

Yes. A place where you would go and order drinks. And the beverages are being, will ultimately be served to patrons? Yes. Okay. So there's nothing there. Does, do the refrigerators change the temperature of the beverages? Let's say yes.

Do they make them hotter? Yes. Refrigerators do? Yes. Do I need to work out the mechanism? How? Is it just that they're, I don't know how you would manage that actually, technically. Yes. Refrigerators do? Yes. Do I need to work out the mechanism how? Is it just that they're... I don't know how you would manage that, actually, technically.

Would it help me to figure out what the beverages are? No. They're just something that needs to be served warm. Is that right? No, I wouldn't quite say that. Oh, okay. I thought I had it. So there are beverages that are stored in the refrigerators.

Yes. And the refrigerators keep stored in the refrigerators. Yes. And the refrigerators keep them at a certain temperature. Yes. Would you say it's cold, that it lowers their temperature? Yes. Let's say it's like, say, the same temperature as, say, our refrigerator in the kitchen. So they're stored cold but served warm. No.

Didn't I say, didn't I ask? So they'll be served ultimately warm to customers no they're stored cold yes and then they're served to customers yes at a temperature that's different from room temperature yes are they served cold yes, so they're just refrigerators then. What did I uncover there before? Well, because you asked if the refrigerators were supposed to be making the drinks colder, and I said no. And then you asked if they're supposed to be making the drinks warmer, and I said yes. But they actually do keep them cold, and they're served cold. Yes. I've answered all of your questions, I think, correctly. All right.

I should have been paying more attention to my own question. The refrigerators are intended to keep the drinks warm, to raise their temperature. Yes. The refrigerators are intended to raise their temperature, but what they actually do is lower it. No. Is there any wordplay in here?

No. Okay. There's like one piece of information you're just using. Yeah, obviously. And you say it wouldn't help me

to know what these beverages are or they don't have unusual properties or anything. That's correct. Okay. And the fact that it's a bar, is that particularly important? No.

Okay. It's just a place that serves beverages. So let's say they buy a case of is that particularly important? No. Okay. Just a place that serves beverages. So let's say they buy a case of these beverages, whatever they are. Okay. And they come in, let's say, room temperature. Can I say that? By room temperature, maybe you should define what you mean by room temperature. Well, is the location of the bar important?

Yes. Ah. Is this on the surface of the earth? Yes. Is it unusually cold outside? Ah. Yes. Ah. Is this on the surface of the earth? Yes. Is it unusually cold outside? Ah. Yes. So this is like at the South Pole or something.

No, it's in Canada, but it's in a hotel that's made of snow and ice, so room temperature is below freezing. So this is true? This is true. Michael says, each winter, the Hotel de Glace reopens north of Quebec City. It is a building constructed of snow and ice and includes an operating hotel and a bar. The first time I went for a drink there, I was pleased to note that the drinks are served in hollowed-out mugs of ice and that the bar maintains several refrigerators to keep the mix for the drinks warm enough that it doesn't freeze. The hotel is also notable in that it only opens for a few months each year in the winter

when the ambient temperature is low enough to keep the building intact. At the end of the season, it closes and then melts, which could have been a separate puzzle in itself. Your problem was you were assuming that room temperature was like, you know, 70 degrees. Right. This is from listener Jessica Aves. In high elevation areas in California, like Kings Canyon National Park, sequoias can grow over 200 feet tall and have bases up to 100 feet wide. If a tree dies on a mountain slope, it usually falls uphill.

Why is that? Does it have something to do with the way the roots are? No. Falls uphill. I have no idea why a tree would fall uphill. Does it have anything to do with the way the wind's blowing from? No. Like where storms are coming from or something?

I mean, I'm sure that is a factor in many cases, but that's not what we're looking for. Okay. Does it have something to do with the shape of the tree as they grow? Like they tend to have more branches on one side of the tree than the other? No. So the weight is sort of... No. Does this have anything to do with the fact that they are sequoias specifically?

No. Is it important that they're at high altitude? No. Is it important the size that they are? Because you mentioned specifically about their size or shape. Yeah, I think I'll say yes to that. Does it have something to do with the fact that they are so thick that their diameter is so large? Yes. Sort of. Yes. Are these trees that are falling naturally? Yes. Not because of a specific event that is causing the tree to fall

or specific type of event that's true that's true okay so it's just like the tree dies of old age or tree disease or whatever trees die of and then falls for that reason yes yes and then they're falling uphill and it's at least partly related to the diameter of the tree. Yes. The height? Indirectly. Indirectly. I'd say more the diameter.

Is it related to anything that's near the tree? Other trees or other geographical features? Yes, something that's near it, but neither of those things. Something that's near the tree. Something that's a natural part of the landscape? Yes. Water? No.

Rocks? No. Not other plant life? Yes. Other plant life? Yes. Plants specifically, not animals or something else? Correct. Correct. Some other kind of tree uh no oh does this have something to do with something that grows on the tree no

so it's something growing near the tree no it's no uh i'll just tell you it's forest debris so it so it's material that's grown in the forest, but that's not... That's not helping at all. It's not necessarily alive any longer. So there's a bunch of forest debris that has fallen off of other trees or other plants. Yes. And somehow this causes the trees to fall uphill. Yes.

If that debris falls on a mountainside, as we're saying it does here, what would happen? Well, I'm thinking it would slide down and collect against the tree. Yes. But I would... So somehow it acts like a... I don't know. I can't think what you call it. Like a fulcrum or something so that when the tree falls...

No. That doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to picture this in my mind. So it would collect, I'm picturing it would collect against the tree on the upward slope side of the tree. I'm gesturing a lot with my hands here and nobody can see, but it does. And then somehow when the tree falls, it still falls towards all the debris. Yes, because there's some factor that happens in between those two events.

So say this debris piles up against the uphill side of the tree. Does that make that part of the tree diseased? No. So it doesn't weaken that part of the tree somehow or bring in insects or something that would weaken that side of the tree? Its presence does eventually weaken that side of the tree, but something has to happen. Oh, okay. Which is just the last piece of the puzzle. Well, yeah, because I'm imagining, I mean, it could cause rot, it could cause disease,

it could block nutrients from getting to the roots on that side. I mean, there's like all sorts of theoretical things that could happen. This is something that's more dramatic and fast. And I don't want to say violent, but it's... If you have a bunch of... Debris? Yeah, piled against a tree. Yeah?

Periodically things happen in forests. In forests, fires. Yes. So the debris catches fire? Yes. So the debris catches fire? Yes. And it causes the tree to get on fire, to be on fire on that side of the tree? And weakens the tree. That's basically it.

Wow. Jessica writes, the answer is fire. Forest debris usually collects on the uphill side of the trunk, providing more material for a ground fire to burn hotter and longer. Hence, that part of the tree and its root system are more likely to be injured or destroyed, resulting in a weak spot that can't hold up a big tree, so they often fall uphill. This puzzle comes from Laura Merz. At the U.S. Open in 2000, teen tennis phenom Tommy Haas was playing a relatively unknown player named Rainer Schüttler. During the first set, the crowd stayed mostly neutral. After Schüttler won the first set, the crowd went wild with every point he won, cheering him on and chanting his name.

When he won the match, the crowd broke into a frenzy of cheers and applause. Why did the New York crowd suddenly support Schüttler so fervently? Does it matter that it was a New York crowd? No. So the crowd was just supporting one player or the other? All of a sudden, yeah. They applauded because he was the underdog in some way. No.

He was not expected to win. That's not why it was happening. Did the victory mean something more than just a tennis match? Like, was he playing for a cause or something? No. Was he... a tennis match like was he playing for a cause or something no was he was he so they were cheering him yes was it that they was that they they were glad to see his opponent not exactly no um okay maybe i've just asked this yeah i guess i did so they were cheering the the meaning it had for the for the spectators was just that he'd won the match not more than that there was another

reason they were cheering him okay if i understand your question yeah it wasn't just yeah that's what i'm getting at so that's what i need to figure out. There was more meaning to the crowd. Yeah. Is there some history that I need to figure out? No. No. You said he was relatively unknown? He was. Is that important? No, it's just that it was more strange that the crowd suddenly started really supporting him.

Was he a professional tennis player? Yes. Okay. Okay. And he's playing tennis player. Yes. Okay. Okay. And he's playing another player. So this was all arranged just as this was the match that had been planned and was just going forward as everyone expected. Yes. And there's no backstory that I need to know.

There's no backstory. It's just at some point the crowd suddenly really was trying to get Shutla to win. Like they really were doing their best to try to help him win. And this happened partway through the match. Okay. Does the answer turn on the rules of tennis or the details of the... No. Okay.

So I don't need to dig that out. You do not. Is there anyone else involved besides essentially those two and just the spectators in general? Yes, there is. An official? No. Another player? Yes.

Is there another player on the court? No. Another player playing in another game? Don't know. Don't know? Let's say no. No, probably not playing in another game at that same time. Does he have multiple personalities?

No. Not that I know of. Maybe he does. Okay. So when they started playing the match, it was just pretty much going on as you'd expect. And the crowd was pretty neutral as to who was going to win. And then you said something happened. Yeah.

Was that in the first set, did you say? Yeah, yeah. After he won the first set, then the crowd really started cheering him on trying to get him to win. Is the time important somehow? What do you mean by the time? I don't know. I want to say April Fool's Day, but that wouldn't make any sense. No. Something like that. There's some occasion that sets a context here that gives it some meaning. Something along those lines, but that might be hard to figure out. It's not like April Fool's Day, but there is some context for this. You said this is the which? The 2000 U.S. Open. All right, so that's not something unusual. No.

Okay, so they start playing Something Happens, and he basically sounds like gets the spectators on his side. Would you say that? Yeah, although it's not so much that they were specifically on his side. They realized that if he won the match that some good outcome would obtain. Yes. That's a very good question. Yes.

For themselves? Yes. They would benefit? Yes. That's a very good question. Yes. For themselves? Yes. They would benefit? Yes. And that's why they were overjoyed when he did pull it off. Yes, and that's why they were sort of trying to push him on to win.

And this was communicated to them somehow after the first... Yeah. Whatever this was. Yeah. By him? Did he say something? No, no.

And it doesn't matter how it was communicated, but the crowd understood something, and they really wanted... Was he setting a record? No. I'm trying to think what the context would be. This is kind of hard to guess. I'm trying to think if there are hints that I can give you. Well, when you say there's another player involved, is that someone in the past who

had... No, not the past. In the future? Yes. No, not the past. In the future? Yes. Oh, really? Yes. Another player, would you say, or just another person? Another player.

And not his opponent? Not his opponent. Okay. So the spectators are obviously thinking if he wins this match, then something will happen. Yes. And that involves this other person. Yes. And they really started rooting for him when he won the first set.

Once he won the first set, then they wanted him to continue to win. If he hadn't won the first set, they wouldn't have done this. Correct. If he'd won the second set, would they have? I don't know. But like Tommy Haas is the guy he was playing. If Tommy Haas had won, they probably would have started rooting for Tommy Haas. Oh, that helps.

So I keep wanting to ask if it's a record. No, it's not a record. But something like that. They're on their way to accomplishing something. Not these two people, no. The crowd is actually more interested in the other tennis player, another famous tennis player. But it's not that he's going to beat a record. No, because it's in the future. It's in the future, right. They're more

interested in the future than what is currently happening right now. When they say the future, is it just that the winner of this match will go on to play? Nope. Nothing about the current people. They're very interested in what's going to happen next. Based on the outcome of this match?

Not exactly. I mean, sort of, but... Does it have... Are there other circumstances I'm not uncovering, like, I don't know, the weather or the political situation? No, no, no, no. Nothing like that? No, no.

So one of them... They start cheering for whoever starts to win this match. Yeah. And then... So if Tommy Haas had been the one, Right. this would have just been reversed

and they would have been overjoyed that he'd won. Yes. And this concerns another player. Yes. The player coming up.

The player who's going to play next. On this court? That they're hoping, yes. That they're hoping, but that new player isn't going to play either of these two. Correct. I'm not getting it.

No, I'll just have to tell you. They want the game over quickly. They want the match over quickly to get to see Martina Navratilova, who was supposed to be coming up next, but only if the match was resolved quickly enough. So Laura says, in 2000, Martina Navratilova was making her comeback in doubles tennis,

and her premier game at the US Open was happening after Schuttler's match. All of her fans got to the stadium early to get the seats to see her play. And after the first set of the match, the word spread that Navratilova's match would be moved to a different stadium if the Schuttler match went longer than three sets.

Oh, wow. So therefore, the crowd did everything in their power to ensure Schuttler won in three sets by cheering him on and booing his spirits when he lost a point. And she says, it worked. I was there and it was magical. Mr. Schuttler was very confused and surprised by how strongly we supported him, but he thanked us all after he won. And she says, as a side note, in gratitude for allowing me to see the great Navratilova play, I followed Mr. Schuttler's career for the rest of the time he played in tennis, and he was very good. He made it to number five in the world. This is from listener Auspaul. A book is checked out of the school library every Friday at noon, always by a different pupil, and returned a few hours later.

Why? Why? Okay, are the different students working in concert? Like, are they aware of each other doing this? Yes. Is this something they've agreed upon, would you say, in some way in advance? I think I'll say yes to that. Okay. Does it matter what grade the students are in? Not really.

Gender? No. Do they have some other defining characteristic, like they're all in the same organization, or there's some other characteristic that would define them all? Yes. Okay. But it's not their grade or gender? That's right.

And by student or pupil, you mean like a student at a school, right? Yes. I don't know what you would mean but just checking um okay so there's some defining characteristic is it that they all belong to some organization yes like a club would you say so some student group yes something to do with sports no some other kind of competition like debate or math team or something no uh and it doesn't matter what gender they are um is this a kind of a club that i would normally associate with school with a school i think so yes kind of unusual um i am trying to remember what kinds of would it be something like the boy scouts or girl scouts like scouting school-related, oh, would it be something to do

with the school yearbook or the newspaper or something like that? No. The school radio station? Would this matter if it was a high school versus an elementary school? I'd say this would be more common in a high school. Yeah, that's what I was somehow picturing

was older students. And they check out the same book at noon and then return it. Yes. And it's a different student each time. Yes. Could it be the same student each time? Yes, it could. It could.

So it doesn't have to be different students. That's right. But they're all members of the same club. Yes. Is the book the same every day? Is this a book that would change in some way no it doesn't change the book does not change and it's a very specific book a book that i would have heard of no a book that's specific to the school somehow yes like a school yearbook uh something like that something not like a school yearbook but Something like that.

Something like a school yearbook. But specific to this school. So I wouldn't expect to find this book in a different library. Not necessarily. No, but I don't want to lead you too far in that direction. Okay. All right. So I could potentially find this book in another library, but I'd be less likely to.

I don't know if this is intended as a hint, but it works very well as one. The book is large, ornate, leather-bound, and rather boring. A very detailed school chronicle. Too long to read in a few hours. Oh, do they just need something large or heavy? Like they're going to stand on it or sit on it or put something else on it? No, but you're not far off. Do they need it more as a physical object than as a book.

I'd say yes. What would you need a physical object for? So they basically need something large or heavy book-shaped that they're using this. Like, could it be a block of wood and not a book? No. No, but it needs to be a book. Yes.

Oh, oh, are they doing a school play and it's a prop? No, but you're very close. Oh, shoot. I thought I had it. I thought that would... That qualifies completely. I'll give you one other hint. It also smells faintly of oil paint and paint thinner. Because they're using it in an art class. Yes. They're drawing it or they're including it in some kind of a drawing or painting. Yeah, it's the art club. The book is used as a prop for models of the art club. People are painted reading that book. Ah, okay. Just a very visually appealing book. Got it. This is another puzzle from the book How Come a Book of Riddles by Agnes Rogers from 1953 that was delightfully sent to us by John Jerome and that we discussed in episode 306.

A recently engaged couple, obviously very much in love, were walking down Fifth Avenue in New York. Suddenly, the young man started to beat his companion violently about the head. Oh, my God. How come? That's the puzzle? That's the puzzle. All right. We're bare making any editorial comment.

If you remember, Agnesgers says that very few of these puzzles are sweet all right was he did he think he was trying to help her yes was there a bee or something attacking her no that's a good thought no beating her would you say it again beating her about again? Beating her about the head? Violently beating her about the head. And does that mean what I think it means? Yes. Yeah. I think so.

You could describe what you think it means. Okay. But he thought he was... Yes. Did he think he was warding off some danger? Like if he hadn't done this, he thought she'd come to harm in some way. Are other people involved? Yes, actually, I suppose.

Yeah. Other people who, would those have been the ones who harmed her if he hadn't done this? Let's say yes. Yes. More than one person? No. Okay. One, but, all right.

One other person. Was he actually beating her or it just appeared to be and was actually intending to do something else? Yes. The latter? Yes. So he was like waving his arms? I wouldn't say waving his arms. Signaling somehow?

No, no, no. Motioning to this other person? No. Nothing like that? No, nothing like that. It was pretty close to sort of beating her about the head, but... So it wasn't inadvertent, he wasn't... That's correct, it wasn't inadvertent, but it was what you said.

It was intended for another purpose. But what would that be if it's not killing a bee? All right. They were walking down Fifth Avenue in New York. So, I mean, I'm not saying there are no bees on Fifth Avenue in New York, but there probably aren't a ton of them, usually. This other person, is it a he? Can I assume it is? Unknown, but it could be a he.

Let's say it's a he. Was he intending to hurt her? No. So this was an accident. Yes. An impending accident. Yes. And this guy does something,

waves his arms and hits her. Well, I wouldn't say he waves his arms, but he hits her. Okay. Is it just to knock her out of the way, out of the path of something? No. And he succeeded, we'll say.

Yes. All right. Let's talk about the other guy, the man who might hurt her. Is he in a vehicle? No. Is he moving relative to her? No. No?

No. Is she going to walk into him? No. Are they both at street level? No. She is? Yes. Is he above her? No. Are they both at street level? No. She is? Yes. Is he above her? Yes.

Does he drop something? Yes. Okay. Good thought. So that was not there yet. No, you're making a lot of progress. This is doing very well. So something's falling by accident, I guess. Yes. Toward her. I wouldn't use the verb tenses you're using. Something fell. Yes. Something fell toward her. Yes. And it threatened to hit her, right?

That's what I'm imagining. It did hit her. Oh. But that's not the harm that this guy was trying to avert, because it's already happened. There's a future harm that he's trying to avert. So that turns on what fell. Yes.

And now beating her about the head would help. Oh, is she on fire? Yes, yes, that's exactly right. A careless smoker tossed a burning cigarette from a window high above, which landed on the girl's hat. A fluffy little job trimmed with tulle which instantly flared up. The young man quickly put out the flames with his hands. Okay, fair enough. Futility Closet is supported entirely by our incredible listeners. If you'd like to contribute to our celebration of the quirky and the curious, please check out our Patreon page

at patreon.com slash futility closet or see the supporters section of the quirky and the curious, please check out our Patreon page at patreon.com slash futilitycloset. Or see the supporters section of the website at futilitycloset.com. While you're at the site, you can also graze through Greg's collection of over 11,000 bite-sized amusements. Browse the Futility Closet store, learn about the Futility Closet books, and see the show notes for the podcast with links and references for today's puzzles. books and see the show notes for the podcast with links and references for today's puzzles. If you have any questions or comments for us or a puzzle to send, please email us at podcast at futilitycloset.com. Our music was written and performed by Greg's amazing brother, Doug Ross. Thanks for listening, and we'll talk to you next week. you